Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:02:30 -0700 From: Jason Wolfe <nitroboost@gmail.com> To: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, jfv@freebsd.org, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 82574L hangs (with r233708 e1000 driver). Message-ID: <CAAAm0r1bnr%2Bohr_RuXQk9fYa0hY4Oy86mFhFAYCi0pQaAP_9rA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1345213426.53058.YahooMailClassic@web121603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <CAAAm0r0TZEHKzXpam0Whg6ThMQ8TjAz=2NdDXOSiGmhhdnqxzw@mail.gmail.com> <1345213426.53058.YahooMailClassic@web121603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> wrote: > > --- On Thu, 8/9/12, Jason Wolfe <nitroboost@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ever since r235553 the 82574L has been stable for me, >> collectively >> passing ~1.2Tb/s for the past 4 months without issue. >> We did have >> some issues with switches not liking the fallout of what >> r236162 fixed >> that we updated to, but the cards themselves were >> fine. If you pull >> the current e1000 from 8-STABLE you'll get up to r236162. >> >> Jason > > Do you get occasional watchdog reset messages? I'm trying to see if > the buffer jumping problem has been fixed or if they just put a condition > watch in to keep it from remaining hung. > > Is Jack confident that something substantive has been corrected? If so, > what was the culprit? I have to patch it into a 7.x driver. > > Barney Barney, I've not seen any watchdog errors, and they have been performing pretty flawlessly even with the NIC pegged. I believe r235553 was the revision that fixed most of the issues on my end. Jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAAAm0r1bnr%2Bohr_RuXQk9fYa0hY4Oy86mFhFAYCi0pQaAP_9rA>